UPDATE #3: Ron Paul is asked about his supporters who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. He says he doesn't believe it which is all that's important, and when pressed to tell his supporters to abandon it, he gets a little pissed and says "Please, can I participate in the current debate?"

UPDATE #4: Huckabee talks tough: Just try to attack us, and the next thing you'll see will be the Gates of Hell. That gets a big cheer.

UPDATE #5: Thompson tries to top Huckabee by saying they'll be "introduced to those virgins they're lookin' forward to seeing." (I've noticed Thompson doesn't take religion seriously. He jokes about it, acting as if the "virgins" belief is true. And in last Saturday's debate, he razzed Huckabee for saying he tried to get rid of death -- when he was a preacher. Thompson was all: Didn't work out too well, did it?)

UPDATE #6: McCain looks terribly pleased after he smacks down Giuliani over Iraq. (Giuliani tried to correct him by saying that he too supported the surge, but McCain's point was that he was the only one who was critical of the Rumsfeld strategy and in support of the surge.)

UPDATE #7: Thompson: "You can tell that the news is good coming out of Iraq because you read so little about it in the New York Times."

UPDATE #8: Romney is going to "move the world of Islam" into modernity. Romney makes a lot of hand gestures, here and elsewhere, demonstrating how he's going to manipulate and reshape everything. I have no idea if he can do this — I tend to doubt it — but I believe him when he says — as he often does — that he fixed the Olympics. Later, he tells us he's going to take Washington apart and put it back together again. It sounds very dramatic, and he makes those hand gestures, so... who knows?

UPDATE #9: Thompson seems to have gotten the message that he can't be lethargic. Finally.

UPDATE #10: Huckabee, asked about his support for the religious proposition that wives must submit to their husbands, says: "It has nothing to do with the presidency — I just wanted to clear up that little doctrinal quirk." And he clears it up well. Wives are to submit to their husbands, but husbands must submit to their wives. God wants both to give 100%. And so Huckabee was good natured about getting probed about religion and he got to make a strong statement in support of marriage, which thrills the crowd and — like he said — has nothing to do with the presidency.

1) Fred-- why has he not been doing this all along?2) Giuliani-- nothing fancy, nothing bad.3) McCain-- pretty much where Giuliani is, although with not quite as good of a presentation.4) Romney/Huckabee. Can't decided between the two as far as tonight. Huck has had better answers, but got gutted by Fred. Romney hasn't done anything wrong, but not anything right either.

Z) Paul. The guy is a flake and annoying on top of it. And someone needs to tase, bro, that chick who squeals after every answer he gives.

Not watching the debate, but apparently for Romney, the ability to turn around the Olympics = the ability to personally modernize the Muslim world? Is this guy insane, stupid, or simply pandering to those insane or stupid enough to believe that he can do so?

"Well, no. It doesn't. Most politicians are willing to compromise, and many change their minds over time about what constitutes good policy."

Wow, just wow!

On a more important note, aren't you glad you have Fox News to tell you who "won and lost" the debate?

Frank LuntzWinner: "Fred Thompson"Loser: "Ron Paul"

Haha, wtf? By what measure? He got more cheers than many of the other candidates! How can you approve of that sort of media pandering to various interests? I don't care that you hate Ron Paul, but why do conservatives put up with this new Conservative media that tells you what to think and how to vote?

There was no analysis there at all, it was simply a "snipe" of the anti-War candidate.

Does anyone here (of the conservatives) find it offensive or at least very disconcerting that Huckabee would go on about being proud about his faith and then proceed to completely distort if not lie about the relevant passage in Ephesians.

Here is the whole passage. (from the King James version found at http://www.bartleby.com/108/49/5.html)

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, Col. 3.19 · 1 Pet. 3.7 even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Gen. 2.24

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."

Now I'm Jewish and I haven't studied in any detail the New Testament, but it certainly does not say here that husbands must submit themselves to their wives as Huckabee tried to imply it did. Why should Huckabee get away with saying that it does? Is it a common interpretation to say that it does?

madawaskan - I really do think Paul's answer would be along the lines of It happened because they were somewhere they were not supposed to be (as in overseas). We're not supposed to have any military anywhere overseas, presumably that includes ships.

I know a drag queen who looks identical to Huck's wife-I kind of like Huck's wife.

When some of you mention those fox news guys it depresses me. Carl Cameron-he is such a snakey looking guy. Brit Hume-God he is an ugly republican. Now the fox new babes that is another story. Great tits, tight sweaters, and asses that I could definitely stick my face into.

Let me guess -- you're one of those types who equates refusal to compromise with personal greatness. Most of us grow up and realize the whole world isn't going to do things our way just because we throw a snit if it doesn't. Compromise is part of being an adult in a free society, because guess what -- virtually none of your 300 million fellow citizens WANT to do things exactly the way that you want to do them.

How can you approve of that sort of media pandering to various interests? I don't care that you hate Ron Paul, but why do conservatives put up with this new Conservative media that tells you what to think and how to vote?

I would suggest to you that if you judge who won a debate by measuring who got the most applause from the studio audience, you aren't thinking at all. Paul's supporters are noisy, but his performance was embarrassingly awful. The line about how Navy ships had no reason to fear speedboats was particularly groan-worthy.

The "new conservative media" isn't telling us how to think. It is offering opinions -- and opinions that many of the people in this thread obviously already shared, e.g. that Thompson was doing well and Paul was coming across like the nitwit he is.

Now I'm Jewish and I haven't studied in any detail the New Testament, but it certainly does not say here that husbands must submit themselves to their wives as Huckabee tried to imply it did.

Just as most Jews have come up with flimsy rationalizations for why the Torah doesn't *really* mandate murdering homosexuals, most Christians have come up with flimsy rationalizations for why the Ephesians passage isn't *really* mandating that men dominate the marriage. In short, most religious folk have a knack for reading their holy books in whichever manner best supports whatever it is they wanted to do in the first place.

The scriptural text is in Ephesians, Chapter 5, where St Paul is instructing about Christian families:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

down to verse 25:

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

The theology is this: Wives are told to "respect" - today's word for "submit" - because men - as all studies show, would just about prefer to be respected above being loved. It's an insight into gender relationships.

Men are told to "love" their wives - does anyone believe that women don't need to be told and reassured often that their spouse really loves them?

Ron Paul said he defended Israel's strike against Iraq's nuclear reactor. Nice that he supports Israel's defending itself with preemptive attacks. Too bad he doesn't support the same thing for the United States.

Huck is not too far off in his interpretation, depending on the definition of submit. The passage is interpreted as that a husband should give up his life for his wife, sacrificing his life like Christ sacrificed his for us. Not exactly submitting to her will, but rather submitting to her welfare. Valid or not, that is a common interpretation.

While I am of course not a Christian, I was raised in the faith and have spent more time studying it, and the Bible, than most Christians do, probably you included. So if you're implying that your religion is something I "know nothing about", you're on crack. Just because I think it is a load of hooey doesn't mean I'm uninformed about it.

Here is the simple reality: Paul belonged to a culture that was profoundly sexist. It believed that men were superior to women, that God wanted it that way, and that women had a duty to do what their husband said. NOT vice-versa. He was writing to members of a culture that felt the same way, as virtually all cultures of the time did. Now, maybe God doesn't like it that way. I've never met the guy, so I couldn't say. But the notion that Ephesians is talking about some mutualistic relationship in which husbands and wives are equal parts of a greater whole is ridiculous, as neither the language nor the history of the letter supports that reading.

And incidentally, "submit" meant, and means, "submit", not "respect". Husbands had a duty to be good to their wives, and wives had a duty to do what their husbands told them to do. That is what the letter says. The intelligent interpretation of that, if you believe God thinks of men and women as equals, is "Paul, who after all was just a fallible mortal like the rest of us, got it wrong, which is not surprising given that gender equality was unheard-of in his society". Doing an Orwellian rewrite of what the words and the passages meant in order to shoehorn 0th century Judeo-Grecian thinking into 21st century American sexual egalitarianism, on the other hand, is just plain silly.

Well...we know it's not true, but the radical Islamics that blow themselves up or fight against our troops KNOW it is true. They have been told that all their young lives. Factor that in to their lack of ever having a meaningful relationship with a girl and you have a sure fire way to get them to give up the rest of their lives here on this sorry planet.

I think it was a good line, and it plays well in my part of the country. I even have a t-shirt with a little saying that incorporates those vigins.

BTW, it seems the only disagreement between the various sects of Islam on the virgins is just how many there really are.

I think they have a big surprise coming when they get to where ever they think that they are going.

While I am of course not a Christian, I was raised in the faith and have spent more time studying it, and the Bible, than most Christians do, probably you included.

before I comment further, please tell me where your theology degree is from. Mine is from California Baptist University (specialty New Testament) with studies continued at Wheaton University, Calvin College, and USC.

And then for some reason it says women should be subject to their *own* husbands.

I always thought that was rather strange. What was going on that this needed to be specifically spelled out?

So how does "be subject to" work between other believers?

Women are being asked to behave toward their husband in the way that their husband is being told to behave with other believers.

I think that she's supposed to *cooperate* with her husband. Respect. Not work at cross purposes.

It really is not that troublesome, or at least it wouldn't be troublesome until the first "submit to your own husband as unto the lord" bit is preached from pulpits by male preachers and *all* of the rest of it is left off. Because frankly, all *I'm* asked to do is cooperate, to let my husband lead and to work on his team. What he's being told to do is die for me. To love me more than his own body or his own life.

That, my friend, is a heavy requirement. But it's a requirement that has been ignored for a long time in favor of telling women what they're supposed to do.

And what is also very clear is that I'm supposed to be subject to MY OWN husband and the preacher can go take a flying leap because he's got nothing over me.

I can also make an argument from scripture that while women aren't supposed to teach men or have spiritual authority over them that men are not supposed to teach women or have spiritual authority over them.

Women are supposed to teach other women.

My OWN husband I'm supposed to cooperate with and support. If you aren't my own husband, that isn't *you*.

before I comment further, please tell me where your theology degree is from

Is your argument, then, is that a theology degree confers understanding of Christianity superior to that of a person who does not have such a degree? Because I'd have to disagree with you on that point -- and, of course, point out that there are doctors of theology who agree with my reading. There are doctors of theology who agree with your too, of course, but that gets back to my earlier point about theology not being worth much.

Perhaps it would be better if you pointed out where, in the actual text, the meaning you claim is there actually lies. Or is this one of those emanations and penumbras thing, like the Constitutional right to an abortion? :)

Then again, I doubt anyone actually wants to listen to us have one of these religious arguments again.

I think the argument was that you assumed too much when you wrote this

Well, not necessarily. I've spent more time studying religion than I spent on my college major, after all. But in any case my point was simply that I'm not, as B suggested, uninformed about Christianity. He may disagree with me, but it isn't because I'm just some mouthy atheist who can't be bothered to actually read the Bible. :)

I would also dispute that studying Christian theology actually amounts to the same thing as studying Christianity. Four years of learning Communist doctrine from Communists wouldn't necessarily result in a good understanding of Communism, if you see what I'm getting at.

Did anyone else find it interesting that, when pushed (and I'd argue that, so far as the bit we saw, it was even an aggravated push) about why a group which thought Thompson won mostly mostly couldn't muster clear support for his candidacy, one of the responses chosen to highlight--in fact, it was close to the "closing" response--noted concern over only "recent" experience in government?

Say what one will about Fred Thompson, his experience with/in government isn't exactly confined to the "recent," in the sense of history.

That doesn't bode well. It also doesn't say very much for the degree of knowledge of, at least, that particular participant of the focus group (though I daresay she's representative) or the effectiveness of Thompson's campaign. Or even, perhaps, the local, at least, media's discharge of its basic duty to inform by disseminating, well, basic facts.

Anyway, I know I'm drive-by commenting and stuffing a lot, inelegantly, into just a few sentences. But I think the implication(s) is (are) clear enough.

Also, here's a wild thought that strikes every now and again: Could it be that Thompson might end up, wittingly or unwittingly, helping to maintain McCain as viable, at least long enough? (By slowing Huckabee.)

B was absolutely correct to question your 'study of Christianity' when you spewed that pop psychology interpretation of Ephesians as a sexist man writing for a sexist people.

For Paul, Christian faith calls for a profound reordering (Galatians 3:28 is on point - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus) of *all* human relations.

Re the Huck's comment about submission and his wife Janet. I have met Mrs. Huckabee, and from what I can tell, Mr. Huck is a hypocrite if he advocates wifely submission. That is most definitely NOT Mrs. Huckabee.

I used to know a guy that was in a religious sect of some sort that believed that whole "the wife must submit" stuff - and his wife did too. During any neighborhood event, his wife literally sat at his feet. No kidding, if he was sitting on a lawn chair she sat on the ground to his front left.

I always thought this was astonishing - and here's the kicker - this is when we lived in Austin Texas, not exactly a hotbed of snake handlers.

======

Get a room full of Pubs and call the NYTimes jerks and bathe in the applause. Cheap, but this one will work every time. This is Fred's second score on the media, I predict we'll see him use it more and see other Pubs adopt it as well.

======

Paul looked like a fool ranting on the Iranian boat attack thing, how it somehow indicated we were trying to attack...Iran? Pakistan?

Whatever. Have I told you Paul is my congressman? He's sort of like the 90 year old patriarch at Thanksgiving dinner. Its OK to let him sit at the head of table.

"I would also dispute that studying Christian theology actually amounts to the same thing as studying Christianity. Four years of learning Communist doctrine from Communists wouldn't necessarily result in a good understanding of Communism, if you see what I'm getting at."

I find the whole virgin thing troubling on the theological level. Do they stay virgins, i.e., is virginity a permanent state?

'cause otherwise, even if you go through just one virgin a year, you're gonna be out of virgins far short of eternity.

So, if virgin is the desirable quality, then mustn't we assume that they "re-virginize" at some point? And if the 72 is for variety, there must be some sort of selective amnesia as well, since one could tire of 72 women rather quickly.

What's more, is one granted a degree of heavenly patience to deal with all these virgins? Inexperienced, doubtless intimidated--after all, they didn't do it in life, why would they start having sex now that they don't have bodies? There are some mechanical issues as well that are probably too delicate to cover here.

Or do they still have bodies? Or did they ever? Are they angel virgins, never having lived on earth?

How very un-Christian. And to "b" for taking the bait whilst claiming to BE a Christian, which is even worse.

"Well, what would your typical islamofascist be comparing the virginal sexual encounter to, anyway?"In Christianity it's considered a miracle for the lamb's mother to be a virgin.For Islamofascists virgin lambs are the rarity.